Personal jurisdiction; Bindover return; MCR 6.110(G); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to administrative communication with jury; People v France; Deadlocked-jury instruction; M Crim JI 3.12; Plea bargaining; Lafler v Cooper; Consecutive sentencing possibility; Motion for new trial; MCR 6.431(B); Request for a hearing under People v Ginther; Disseminating sexually explicit matter to a minor (DSEM)

The court held that the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over defendant, that trial counsel was not ineffective as to the jury communication or the plea process, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a new trial or Ginther hearing. Defendant was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, and DSEM involving two minor complainants. He argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the district court had not filed proper bindover return documents. The trial court rejected that argument and later denied his motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court first held that the record showed defendant was properly bound over and that the required return documents were in the circuit court file, noting that once a preliminary exam is held and a defendant is bound over, “‘the circuit court obtains jurisdiction over the defendant.’” The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object when the trial court answered a deliberating jury’s question outside counsel’s presence because the communication was “plainly administrative,” included the standard deadlocked-jury instruction, and was not prejudicial. It also held that defendant failed to show plea-stage prejudice because the trial court and prosecution told him on the record that consecutive sentencing could be sought and that sentences could be “stacked,” yet he still rejected the plea offer. Finally, the court held that no new trial or Ginther hearing was required because there were no grounds supporting reversal and no factual development would advance the ineffective-assistance claims. Affirmed.